October 29, 2012

Staring at the polls too long. What's going to happen in Wisconsin? Who'll take the Electoral College? My guess is: Obama will squeak by or Romney will win a lot. Bob Wright anticipates bad unemployment numbers coming out before the election. I wonder about the effect of the Benghazi scandal, Bob tries to wave it off into oblivion, saying he's "kind of tuned it out." I keep going... for quite a while. In the end, Bob asks why I agitate him so and concludes it's because I say "crazy things." I tell him to "check the transcript."

I think we should all follow the leader here and be cruelly neutral and precious by remaining undecided, because that is what intelligent people who have been following every aspect of these campaigns for well over a year, even having examined in depth the sad and abandoned heroes of Libya, 2 of whom came back to save their charges while holding at bay and killing scores of attackers, and then we can spend the next 2-3 years explaining why we backed the winner of the last campaign and then begin the cycle all over again.

No way I can wade through a half hour of this, but the Benghazi thing appears to have had no impact.

The media buried it. Fox News has been flogging it endlessly. At least an opposition press exists. If you want to know what happened, you can certainly find the information.

I think that the reality is that Americans are so fed up with war that it's impossible to get them excited about any use of military force. The Benghazi story seems to demand some sort of military reprisal.

We've all, I think, lost faith that that accomplishes anything useful in these foreign adventures.

Polls we are shown are only bandwagon creating or voter discouraging propaganda tools ordered up by the Media wing. Like appraisals of real estate, they can be ordered as high or as low by the customers desire.

That said, the real polls kept internally do exist and some may be disclosed after the election.

I agree with you, either a landslide for Romney or Obama barely pulls it out. The MSM is not covering Benghazi so I don't think it will have much impact, even though it should. I think that there are a lot of people who supported Obama in 2008 who will vote for Romney in the privacy of the voting booth, but who aren't publicly saying that they will support Romney. But if the democrats can get their base out to vote (I mean the 47%!) who won't be swayed by the facts, then Obama has a real shot at pulling it off and I will be extremely depressed as I have a son who is in ROTC and I will be very afraid for him if he does end up with a military career.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided. …

Nearly one-in-three Ohio voters (32%) have already cast their ballots. Obama leads 62% to 36% among these voters. Romney has a large lead among those who still plan to vote.

I have never been more stupefied in my life as a voter that I am this year, that this 2012 Obama has the support that he does.I have never found a politician less appealing, qualified, or honest. I have never seen a candidate with less of a plan for another term.OTOH, we have rarely had a man as well suited to deal with the problems of our time as we have with Romney.

For the first time in my adult life, I am baffled by my fellow citizens.

A week in politics is a long time. A lot of things can happen in a week. That said Romney has the momentum as of today so if nothing favorable for Obama happens this week it looks like Romney will win.Now whether he wins by a comfortable amount or narrowly makes it is another thing. How accurate it is I don't know but according to the Carville 'rule' the last poll results determines the incumbents percentage of the vote and presumably the majority of the polls today show Romney slightly ahead.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and a conservative man told an respected female independent that she irritated him because she said "crazy things." Wright and his fellow travelers would see that as proof of horrible sexism that implicates the whole conservative movement, one that holds women don't reason, only emote.

Obama is not accompanying Bill Clinton who is campaigning for him in MN, IA, CO, OH, VA, NH and WI. Make your own inferences. Still rallying the base and many here would agree that BC will not change undecideds or indies.

I don't understand this kind of prediction (and this is not the first time I've seen it made).

What logic leads you conclude something like this? Obama might only get 40% of the total, he might get 51%, but he's certainly not going to get 49%?

I just don't get it.

THE LOGIC:

1. Reading poll crosstabs it appears the polling companies have differing opinions of turnout in various sub-sets of the electorate. Their assumptions alter the algorithms they apply to their random samples, and their projections differ thereby. Consequently it is truly challenging to have a confident feel for what will happen - thus "one thing or the other" will happen.

2. Alternatively, one wonders whether Romney can overcome the margin of fraud. If he can he wins big (conversely, he must win big to overcome the margin of fraud). If he cannot he loses small (Obama creates just enough votes, no matter how many just enough is, to win).

I think the most likely scenario is Romney squeaks by. 2nd, Romney wins by a lot. 3rd Obama squeaks by.

Never underestimate the power of incumbancy, but for weeks now Team Obama has been the gang that couldn't shoot straight. As far as i can tell, the discrepancy between the national pols and the state polls is that they are different polls, and the state polls have small samples, large margins of error, are generally not current, and oversample Democrats. The few national polls that favor Obama also oversample Democrats.

Obama doesn't deserve to be re-elected, but ShoutingThomas is right--our day to day lives will be basically the same regardless of who wins.

Bob is still Obama mesmerized and therefore he can only see the view that this Benghazi betrayal may not have been optimal, but since he cannot think of any reason for Obama to give aid and comfort to Muslims attacking our own men, then it never happened.

That is willful unbelief. Wright may claim to be an honest broker, but he is all the way into the tank on Obama issues.

I think that the reality is that Americans are so fed up with war that it's impossible to get them excited about any use of military force. The Benghazi story seems to demand some sort of military reprisal.

I think Americans of all kinds would be incensed if the truth is Obama knew what was going on and did nothing. I can't imagine an effective Obama presidency if those are the facts, and the facts come out.

Regarding Wright, I wonder how much of tuning out Benghazi he is doing because of what it implies about his guy.

I think Obama by a thin margin because as more folks realize, as Joseph Stigllitz put it, " the macroeconomic consequences of the Romney-Ryan economic program would be devastating: growth would slow, unemployment would increase, and just as Americans would need the social protection of government more, the safety net would be weakened."And Romney's call to eliminate FEMA in the face of Hurricane Sandy will not sit well with the 50 million folks effective by the storm, who will have a first hand experience of FEMA's help.

MayBee,I share your dismay, and it is very disappointing. The choice has rarely been so clear, and it should be a landslide. I'm most disappointed by women. Obama won because of women, and he is only in this race at all now because of women. Men and independents are heavily for change, but women can't really decide?

It probably sounds like hyperbole, but this is one of the reasons I never married. I know they are out there, and there a lot of them in here, but women who can make decisions without being bumped off track (or lost) by trivia or feelings, and who can be reliably trusted to hold steady are just far too rare. An awesome thing to behold when there are, but there are just not enough of them.

The question, of course, who do you really think is going to win (versus who do you want to win).

I agree with my old friend Drill--Romney is going to win big. Here's my rationale(s): Historical data--no president has won with an approval rate less than 50% and Obama's continues to go down; Second, to quote the worlds ugliest man (apologies to keith richards) James Carville: its the economy. Third, while national polls MAY not be accurate for individual states, they reflect larger voter sentiment, and in the end, I think, individual state's election results will more closely reflect national polling than not.

At any rate, we were asked what we thought, and I provided my rationale for why I thought like I did.

And, of course, this condundrum will be revealed to us in the wee small hours of November 7 (9 days hence).

Based on the great success the Left has had at importing the third world to America (with conservative acquiescence) I think there is a good chance that this catastrophe of a president will be reelected.

The issue is simple. Obama has claimed that the minute he heard about it, he directed that all steps be taken to protect Americans. No military support was sent. So, either Obama is lying or, for some reason, his order did not translate into military action. The truth should be disclosed.

RV: I do appreciate your thoughts on the issue, but I got to tell you that not 4 in 100 Americans have any idea who Joe Stieglitz is (a very libertarian economist for those that dont know). If this comment sounds condescending so be it, but IMO all Americans' want is job growth and rising wages--and I dont think they want to wade thru either Krugman's Keynesism nor Steiglitz's libertarianism to understand the issue. They want results.

As far as FEMA goes, read the stafford act to see how the feds assist in natural disasters--with its approximately 3000 employees, FEMA is a pass thru agency for emergency funds, and number of which existing agencies can do. FEMA is NOT a response agency--that is the province of local and state agencies.

"You're not going to be sent to jail for posting this, for one thing."

There is that. Somehow I think that's a little less than the American principle of a free press was intended to deliver. The truth is though that many people living under dictatorship do not have that fear either, yet the press in their country still is only an arm of the government. Just like ours today.

Say what you want about them, and they do have a clear bias to the right, but without FOX, we simply do not have an independent free press in the U.S.

How pathetic is that? Especially when you realize the media is now owned and run by boomers who once had "Question Authority" on the bumper of their VW vans. What a fall, what a collapse, what an embarrassment.

I am going to predict, as of today, that Romney wins the popular vote comfortably and the EC although not so comfortably. In 2008, a lot of things clearly indicated that Obama would win, very little of that I see these days.

There is still a great deal of sentiment that Obama 2008 was a turning point for "hope and change" and reparation for all bad things ever done by WASPs against African Americans since the 17th century. While logic should inform one that didn't happen and isn't happening by a simple election, its a powerful emotional tug.

Bob Wright is tuning out Benghazi? Isn't Blogging heads supposed to be a discussion from smart people about the issue of the day? And wright wants to simply tune it out?If this were the Bush administration would Wright tune it out? Would the Times not put it on their front page.

If its embarrassing or if they have to answer tough questions, why then it's see no evil, speak no evil, and above all....SHHHHHHHHH!

I'm most disappointed by women. Obama won because of women, and he is only in this race at all now because of women. Men and independents are heavily for change, but women can't really decide?

I am too...disappointed by women. I'm also embarrassed by women who buy into idiocy like the vagina monologues, the 'lady parts' issues, those who think with their emotions instead of their brains. When I see some of the commercials, political ads and comments by some of the liberal/progressive leaning women, I am actually ashamed for them.

It isn't just women who have this illogical and emotional mind set. I saw it all the time in my practice with liberal clients and prospects who refused to look at their money and portfolios analytically and instead would want to invest based on emotion and wishful thinking. NO NO NO...that wind energy start up company is not going to make you a lot of money. Just look at the P/E ratio, book value per share, capitalization, industry competition .....yada yada yada.". It was like talking to this Bob Wright bozo. Starry eyed and tuned off on all reality. Sometimes I would just go home and think....."the stupid....it burns".

I don't think we [women like myself, Synova, Freeman and many others who post here] who think logically are all that rare. Maybe you are just hanging with the wrong crowd or in the wrong geographic area to find them.... /wink.

Kansas City wrote:The issue is simple. Obama has claimed that the minute he heard about it, he directed that all steps be taken to protect Americans. No military support was sent. So, either Obama is lying or, for some reason, his order did not translate into military action. The truth should be disclosed.

Even if we assume the best when it comes to Obama's position (I.e that he directed his people to do whatever was necessary to protect the embassy) the fact that it wasn't done means that somewhere along the way someone dropped the ball, or there is a major issue with the presidents directives being carried out successfully. And that would need to be looked into. Why isn't Wright even curious about THAT?

ChipS--thanks for the wiki link--first time I have been wrong since 1947 :) Although I should note that Stieglitz was very critical of government intervention in free markets--that is, I think, a fundamental libertarian position.Of course he does have a Nobel prize in economics (and I could mention our bumbler in chief has a nobel peace prize, but that would be a cheap shot)

First, I followed the 2004 Bush vs. Kerry polling very closely. Every day, I reviewed the state by state polls for electoral votes plus the overall national figure. In the weeks leading up to Election Day, Kerry was gaining gradually and had a kind of momentum I feared would push him over the edge. When the final votes were counted, the overall percentages were virtually identical to what the polls (not exit polls) had recently shown. If the election had been held a month later, given the trend, we could have had President Kerry.

Second, there are a few things we've learned from watching the Republican primaries. The first is that debates matter. The fortunes of Romney, Gingrich and the others rose and fell based on the perceptions of who was the debate winner. Ahead of the first debate many Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan and Bill Sher were downplaying the importance of the debates in general. They and others on the left argued that based on the prior historical evidence - they cited Reagan vs. Mondale and Bush vs. Kerry - the presidential debates ultimately didn't matter much. These arguments may have been made in good faith, but they rang utterly false to anyone paying attention to the primaries this year. Things had clearly changed.

The other lesson from this year's Republican primaries is that targeted advertising works. Romney was often able to use his superior fundraising and organization to overwhelm his opponents. We often saw situations were one of the non-Romney's was ahead nationally, but was losing in the states that were actually voting that week. Unfortunately for Romney, his team is now the one getting outspent and out-organized in key states including, most significantly, Ohio.

Given the above, it appears we are headed for an Obama Electoral College victory with the popular vote much closer if not actually in Romney's favor. If this happens, I will be most interested to see how Republicans comport themselves. The Democrats disgraced themselves in 2000 in attempt to change the rules of the contest after the fact and delegitimize the Electoral College. I assume the Republicans will not travel that low road should the positions be reversed.

An economic theory that claims more government largesse is needed to offset a worsening economy is completely ignorant of where the government money comes from. Hint: you can't just print your way to prosperity.

I still haven't seen any significant movement in the swings states, especially Ohio and Wisconsin, to indicate a Romney win. This morning's Rasmussen Ohio poll, with Romney up by two, is a start, but it's an outlier for now.

My hope is that we finally start to see a groundswell toward Romney this week. Contrary to everyone's expectation, all of the major newspapers in Iowa have now endorsed Romney—so maybe that's an omen.

Impressive. I was referring to the multi state RNC/Nathan Sproul operation of throwing Democratic voter registration forms in dumpsters though. Any thoughts on that?

I'm not sure what your beef is here. Is there evidence of anything but one person tossing Democrat registration forms in the dumpster?

Regarding Sproul, it seems his company was offering up invalid registration forms. Was this intentional? If so, where is your evidence?

Insofar as asking a poll prior to performing a registration, that sounds like a clever way to get around registering Democrats. I fail to see why R's or D's for that matter should pay money to register the opposition, unless required by law. If there is a legal way of getting around it, more power to R's and D's that do this.

In other words, what are you complaining about here? One guy? A possible conspiracy? Where's the evidence?

And, do you think there is more or less evidence here the RNC did something illegal than the Obamao's screw up in Benghazi?

This guy says several times, with pride, that he isn't following the Benghazi story and is clearly ignorant of the facts as they have come out. He has pidgeon holed the whole thing as political slander from the right."What's your theory?" he keeps asking, anxious to keep things in the realm of abstraction. He doesn't want to hear any more facts. He rationalizes closing his eyes and covering his ears by interupting Ann with a discription of his own reasonableness and anecdotes to show it its beyond. question.I'm embarrassed for him. He's an ostrich in this discussion.

I'm going with the two University of Colorado profs who have been calling it right since 1980. They called the race for RR in August and again in September, based on economic factors, not polls. Romney with 300+ EVs and 52% of the popular vote.

Of course, this could be the year they get it wrong. But their track record is a bit more impressive than Silver's.

My 2 cents. Amazingly, the race is extremely close. Small things can change it one way or the other, like in Florida Bush v. Gore.

The aptly named "Butterfly Ballot" probably gave Bush a bunch of votes. The press calling the state for Gore early probably cost Bush some votes.

Get out the vote is going to be extremely important for both candidates.

My only beef is that people have all the real information. It's a shame that young people don't have the perspective on the economic consequences to their future. Probably they have been relying on Mom and Dad too much, and don't understand someone has to produce the things they consume.

RV: "I think Obama by a thin margin because as more folks realize, as Joseph Stigllitz put it, " the macroeconomic consequences of the Romney-Ryan economic program would be devastating: growth would slow, unemployment would increase, and just as Americans would need the social protection of government more, the safety net would be weakened."

"Among all Ohio voters, Romney now has a 12-point lead over the president in voter trust – 53% to 41% - when it comes to the economy. Last week, he had just a seven-point advantage among voters in the state when they were asked which candidate they trusted more to deal with the economy.

Romney’s also trusted more by eight points in the areas of job creation and energy policy but leads Obama by just two when it comes to housing issues.

National security has been an area where the president has typically had an advantage over Romney this year. But, the Republican challenger now has a 52% to 42% advantage on the issue."

First, I followed the 2004 Bush vs. Kerry polling very closely. Every day, I reviewed the state by state polls for electoral votes plus the overall national figure. In the weeks leading up to Election Day, Kerry was gaining gradually and had a kind of momentum I feared would push him over the edge. When the final votes were counted, the overall percentages were virtually identical to what the polls (not exit polls) had recently shown. If the election had been held a month later, given the trend, we could have had President Kerry.

This is all true, except the last sentence. This is a common refrain about many elections - I heard it recently about Humphrey - but it isn't true. If the election were later - or earlier in the case of Carter / Reagan - people would begin the decisionmaking process earlier or later to compensate. The poll bleeding occurs as a result of the decisionmaking process, the timing of which is largely determined by the election date. These are not independent variables.

Timing only matters at all when real-world events intercede, and I don't know of any clear case when they have recently. People here might think Benghazi, but if that debacle turns your vote you were very likely to end up voting Romney anyway. It's more cementing or finalizing, or providing a non-controversial justification of the vote rather than changing votes. Same with the financial crisis and Obama / McCain.

"Department of Labor going to delay release of jobs report until after the election? "

And the last number was a politically motivated lie to us all. They left out the California data.

“The U.S. Labor Department said the number of people in the U.S. who filed for new jobless claims last week fell sharply by 23,000 to 369,000,” Fox Business reported on Thursday."

“Meanwhile, California saw a big spike in claims, surging by 26,935, by far the largest increase in the nation."

"Focus on who was responsible for leaving the data out is falling on Marty Morgenstern, reports The Daily Caller. Morgenstern was appointed by California governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011."

Kansas City wrote:The issue is simple. Obama has claimed that the minute he heard about it, he directed that all steps be taken to protect Americans. No military support was sent. So, either Obama is lying or, for some reason, his order did not translate into military action. The truth should be disclosed.

This is OT, but thought I needed to respond to this. I think that this is really a false choice. GW Bush would have spent the night in the situation room, and not gone up stairs to take a nap while the compound was in flames and American lives were at risk, and, then gone off the next day to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

We aren't talking a low level screwup. The information was in the White House and Obama's inner circle within minutes of the initial attack. Sure, it might have been Valerie Jarrett or Joe Biden who actually said "no", and not the President. But, they did so with the implicit approval of the President. The approval for the use of force had to come from the Commander in Chief, which is why he gets this sort of information so quickly. He either dawdled, said "no", or one of his closest people said "no" for him. My guess is that he dawdled, with Jarrett and maybe Biden reminding him that using force there would have cast doubt on his foreign policy in an election season.

Yes, there were screw ups. Security in Libya was significantly, if not drastically, reduced late summer, despite strong indications, evidence, and recommendations to the contrary, including from the dead ambassador, that the security situation was rapidly deteriorating in Libya. Hillary! likely had a hand there. But, I will suggest that that is just a side show for what happened, or, really didn't happen, in the afternoon and evening of 9/11/11 in the White House.

My guess right now is a decently sized Romney win. Momentum is in his direction, and I just don't see an effective October Surprise working this late. Maybe if not for Benghazi. But, I just don't see anything less than finding a dead girl or teenaged boy in Romney's bed working at this late date. Sure, Obama could "wag the dog", and launch some missiles somewhere. But, if he did so now, it has been talked about so much, that its not likely to work. Gloria Allred seems neutered, possibly by Trump's bet, or maybe just by the Romney camp calling her bluff.

There are a couple of jokers here though. One is the level of voter fraud. There have been reports of busloads of people voting in Ohio, appearing to be coming from out of state, which may be an indication of the size of the effort there. Holder has done everything in his power to facilitate voter fraud. Will it be enough? We won't know for better than a week now.

The other is Sandy. Obama could look so Presidential during the response that he swings a lot of voters. I doubt this will happen, for a number of technical reasons pointed out by others here, and because I don't think that he has it in him.

That said, I think that the "momentum" was somewhat inevitable. Much of the polling throughout the summer and fall had outrageous sampling bias built in, assuming a stronger Dem preference than in 2008, which arguably was the fluke election, and not 2004 or 2010. The major pollsters need to get their excess bias out before the election, so that they don't find their last polls before it off by 5-10 points. And that, in itself, was going to show momentum for Romney.

BENGHAZI-GATE: COVERUP FOR CIA GUN-RUNNING IN SYRIA?: As more and more leaks develop about Benghazi, an intriguing theory is emerging: That Ambassador Stevens was involved in recruiting Al Qaeda jihadists–and providing them weaponry–to fight Assad’s regime in Syria. If true, this could provide some context for an Obama Administration motive to cover up and deny military aid to Stevens and his colleagues at the consulate compound.

I wonder about the effect of the Benghazi scandal, Bob tries to wave it off into oblivion, saying he's "kind of tuned it out." I keep going... for quite a while. In the end, Bob asks why I agitate him so and concludes it's because I say "crazy things." I tell him to "check the transcript."

I noticed this about lefties. They don't want to confront facts that disagree with their favorite meme du jour.As an example. GarageM will push voter fraud by Republicans in Florida, which I do not doubt exists, but is totally silent when rampant democrat vote fraud is brought up. He doesn't want to address it or even acknowledge it exists.As if by not facing those facts the situation itself does not exist.

If there really was nothing to the stuff coming out about Benghazi, then the MSM would be covering it to exonerate their candidate. The fact that they are doing the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, report-no-evil monkey dance tells us all we need to know.

Poor Bob Wright is just another one of the monkeys. And it was cruel of you to push inconvenient truths upon a man with no desire to learn them.

As an example. GarageM will push voter fraud by Republicans in Florida

It's not Republican fraud--it's Republicans following the law, getting "voters" off the list that are specifically excluded by law because they're illegal or are convicted felons. Like that. Garage is all for making every vote count as long as it counts for a Democrat. Military voters? Nah, stop complaining about Dem tricks and exclusion. Yes, when people keep on using different names and social security numbers, mistakes are sometimes made. Remedies like actually checking fingerprints won't be allowed---just like the wailing and gnashing of teeth about photo IDs.. Let everyone vote! Right. Just like Gore's recount. Stop when you get to the Cuban precincts that went heavily for Bush.

The hurricane probably will save any pressure on Obama regarding Benghazi. Joe Scarborough yesterday might have been the last chance to ask the relevant question:

"I want to focus on events in the White House that you participated in on 9/11 and that require no investigation. You say that the minute you heard about the attack you issued an order to do everything to protect the Americans in Benghazi who were under attack, but it is clear the military did not send help. Who did you give that order to and what was your role/participation in the subsequent decision not to send military help?"

Instead, Scarborough got weak and asked a silly question about bad intelligence after letting Mika swoon for a moment.

Conserve Liberty, that's not what I'm asking. If you were to graph the likelihood of the possibilities, from a Romney sweep on one end to an Obama sweep on the other, you'd (apparently) have a high probability at a big Romney win, which then decreases as you move closer to a tie, comes back up again at a small Obama win, but then drops again as you continue on into Obama big win territory. That doesn't make sense.

Except, as Dust Bunny Queen suggested, fraud. Romney won't win a close election because if it is close, the Dems will manufacture enough votes for Obama to win.

But I wonder if that's what Ann is thinking. And how about you, Carrie? You said the same thing, either a Romney blow-out or an Obama squeaker. Do you think the Dems are cheaters, too?

Obama has claimed that the minute he heard about it, he directed that all steps be taken to protect Americans.

That's not what he said. He said the minute he found out what was happening.

In other words, HE had to discover what was happening, presumably due to his excellent commander in chief approach, and once he did find out, he sure gave some good orders. Like, we are going to hold the people who did this accountable.

Notice he didn't say "The minute I knew American's lives were in peril," but once he found out "what was happening."

For leftists, that probably means as soon as he knew it wasn't the video, and knew it was a terrorist attack. And depending on the context, that either means in his first speech in which he said the US will not tolerate acts of terrorism, or who knows. Maybe after he arrested the guy for making the video that caused all that ME unrest.

Yes, it's known as "Chicago style" governance. We are already receiving hints that the October jobs report -- which was expected to be bad news for the Administration -- will be "delayed." This after last month's optimistic report turned out to be inaccurate because of curiously delayed reporting of the California numbers. Yes, by any means necessary.

I agreed with Ann because I think that it will come down to whether there are a lot of bigots out there who decide that they can't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. I was talking to one of them on Saturday--she hated where Obama was leading the country but . . . It is scary that something like that could effect the outcome of the election. Romney has a record that is well known and as far as I can tell there is absolutely no proof that being a Mormon impacted anything he has done other than making him into a decent human being with traditional family values. I am leaning more towards the Romney landslide where a lot of people won't admit publicly that they are voting for Romney but do so in the privacy of the voting booth, but I am still worried about the bigots.

Check out the action from 11:45 - 12:03. Ann explaining something, then Wright dismissing it as a "Huge Reach," then Ann's reaction "Why?"

The word "Why" doesn't explain it: you have to hear the reaction of offense in that "Why?" Not even having heard Wright's reasoning (though naturally he is being is dismissively interrupting before he hears Ann's entire line of reasoning).

Then Wright armchair quarterbacking about what Drones can and can not do.

Is this what liberals want? What sounds like a "plausible" version of reality, to allow them to cling to their vision of the Messiah?

Jake Diamond said... Apparently right wingers have raised the bar since they made endless excuses for Bush's incompetence and floundering before and after 9/11.

You have to love the nuts. On 9-11-01 they believed it was sufficient to be President when the attack ocurred to prove incompetence. On 9-11-12 not only is being President insufficient, even asking questions about the Presidents actions is inappropriate.

Also revealing: to them everything negative in Obama's administration is Bush's fault, but blame for 9-11-01 magically stops with Bush even though Clinton nixed a plan to capture / kill Bin Laden. Amazing how tricky those lines of responsibility are, never touching the lefts champions.

Carrie, that doesn't resolve the problem I'm seeing with the "Romney landslide or Obama squeaker," though.

If there are no anti-Mormon bigots, you get your Romney landslide. If there are quite a few anti-Mormon bigots, Obama squeaks out a win.

But what about the possibility that there are enough bigots to make it close, but not enough to put Obama over the top?

And now that I've typed it out, I realize where the problem is - you don't actually mean it'll be either a Romney blowout or an Obama squeaker, you mean it could be anywhere between a Romney blowout and an Obama squeaker.

If there are no anti-Mormon bigots, you get your Romney landslide. If there are quite a few anti-Mormon bigots, Obama squeaks out a win.

Actually, according to that poll Ann posted recently about racism in America, something like 35% of Americans now believe Obama has no religion, and 15% of Americans think his religion will affect their vote (in a negative way, as I recall).

Oddly, it's the same # of people who said Romney's religion will affect their vote (in a negative way).

I do think it will be either a blowout or a squeaker, but it could be a squeaker for either party although I think Obama has the edge if it's a squeaker. As for the polls on religion, I have read that people were reluctant to participate in polls this year because they didn't think that their responses would be anonymous. If that is really the case, then I think that people would be particularly unwilling to participate in polls (or at least give truthful answers) that could expose them as bigots so I don't put much stock in polls about the candidates religious preferences.

I do think it will be either a blowout or a squeaker, but it could be a squeaker for either party although I think Obama has the edge if it's a squeaker. As for the polls on religion, I have read that people were reluctant to participate in polls this year because they didn't think that their responses would be anonymous. If that is really the case, then I think that people would be particularly unwilling to participate in polls (or at least give truthful answers) that could expose them as bigots so I don't put much stock in polls about the candidates religious preferences.

@SeanF: I mean Romney must have so many votes in so many states that the Democrat machine simply cannot and will not attempt to manufacture enough votes to steal the election. If Obama is even close the machine will "make" it a squeaker for Obama.

Thus there can not possibly be a close Romney victory.

I know a normal distribution suggests that could be an outcome, but fraud is a measure of skewness that prevents samples passing a T-test. The histogram is not normally distributed.

I wonder if one of the questions they ask Supreme Court nominees is whether you have had an abortion or paid for an abortion?

I believe they ask them all sorts of intrusive questions. Have you committed adultery, have you smoked pot, have you looked at pornography. What's your net worth? Etc. The abortion question would be one more intrusive question.

I feel sorry for the nominees. I really feel sorry for whatever woman President Romney nominates for the Court to replace Ginsburg. Sarah Palin had it tough and she was running for warm bucket of spit.

whoever thinks if obama wins that benghazi will be his watergate is high. watergate only happened because the media hated nixon. and the press now is more openly and brazenly partisan than ever. they won't go after one of their own and will bury the story. what do they have to lose -- their credibility is already shredded. all they have left is their agenda driven narrative that plays well in the echo chamber they live in.

Exactly right Knox. In the building trades, you learn by working with people doing the work, not with people who learned it out of a book. Why is that only good for a plumber but not for a lawyer or accountant? diamond bar plumber